Author Topic: Fr Malchi Martin - vindicating St John Paul 2 (Read 6156 times)

BTNYC · « **Reply #15 on:** November 20, 2014, 11:14:44 PM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Quote from: Ladislaus
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.

Completely wrong

He himself was maddeningly vague on that point, referring to himself in public as "Doctor" Martin, rather than "Father" or "Reverend," while accepting all of these titles from others indifferently.

Mabel · « **Reply #16 on:** November 20, 2014, 11:32:08 PM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: LaramieHirsch
Quote from: Ladislaus
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.

Completely wrong

He himself was maddeningly vague on that point, referring to himself in public as "Doctor" Martin, rather than "Father" or "Reverend," while accepting all of these titles from others indifferently.

I was told that he was made a bishop and cardinal in peccatore by Siri. Source: Chapel conspiracy guy. Seems legit. :tinfoil:

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #17 on:** November 20, 2014, 11:40:14 PM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: LaramieHirsch
Quote from: Ladislaus
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.

Completely wrong

He himself was maddeningly vague on that point, referring to himself in public as "Doctor" Martin, rather than "Father" or "Reverend," while accepting all of these titles from others indifferently.

Once you are a priest, you are a priest forever. Even if you are laicized, you remain a priest. Whether you go to Heaven or Hell. Ordination is a sacrament that you cannot erase from the timeline.

Mabel · « **Reply #18 on:** November 20, 2014, 11:41:10 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

Quote from: BTNYC
Quote from: LaramieHirsch
Quote from: Ladislaus
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.

Completely wrong

He himself was maddeningly vague on that point, referring to himself in public as "Doctor" Martin, rather than "Father" or "Reverend," while accepting all of these titles from others indifferently.

I was told that he was made a bishop and cardinal in peccatore by Siri. Source: Chapel conspiracy guy. Seems legit. :tinfoil:

*pectore
Auto correct hates me and I've been teaching two different levels of Latin!

BTNYC · « **Reply #19 on:** November 21, 2014, 12:33:04 AM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Quote from: BTNYC
Quote from: LaramieHirsch
Quote from: Ladislaus
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.

Completely wrong

He himself was maddeningly vague on that point, referring to himself in public as "Doctor" Martin, rather than "Father" or "Reverend," while accepting all of these titles from others indifferently.

Once you are a priest, you are a priest forever. Even if you are laicized, you remain a priest. Whether you go to Heaven or Hell. Ordination is a sacrament that you cannot erase from the timeline.

No one's arguing against that fact, which is a separate issue from what the proper address was for Malachi Martin in the final years of his life - and the fact that he did nothing to clarify that unseemly ambiguity.

John McLaughlin remains a priest forever, the priestly character remains indelibly and ontologically stamped upon his soul... but you don't hear Pat Buchanan addressing him as "Father"... I'd likewise refrain from addressing him thus, were I introduced to him.

andysloan · « **Reply #20 on:** November 21, 2014, 12:55:12 AM »

BTNYC said:

"What do you propose we do with these peskily undeniable objective facts, Andy?"

Fr Amorth is, without sin, permitted to piously believe in Medjugorje, though the apparitions are apparently false. That does not remove the integrity of his office as an exorcist nor the veracity his testimony.

Whatever sins Fr Martin may have committed, the interview I posted was in 1994 and the book you refer to was written in 1964. Can we apply the same judgement on you, for the sins you may have committed in your youth? Have you heard Fr Martin's confessions through his life? Your judgement is only your opinion and not conclusive and you know not Fr Martins intentions. And whatever mistakes he may have made, that does not disallow a keen sagacity in his latter years especially.

As to the action of St Pope John Paul 2, you either have not listened to Fr Martin's reasoning, or you unreasonably don't accept it. Either way, you have been deprived of understanding from above.

This because of your pride and what the substance of your objection regarding St Pope John Paul 2, is that it is fearful and would be too much for your ego to have it threatened. That is why your efforts in discreditation, are so poor in balanced reasoning and objectivity.

However unfortunately for you, as things stand, when the great warning comes in the next years, you will be shown why God has given you to such severe blindness, namely for your pride, which is so common amongst contemporary Trads, who are Traditional in their mass attendance, but highly uncatholic in their behaviour:

Colossians 3:8

"But now put you also all away: anger, indignation, malice, blasphemy, filthy speech out of your mouth."

Ephesians 4:29

"Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good, to the edification of faith, that it may administer grace to the hearers."

Because of this, you have been blinded by God to the fullness of truth.

Romans 11:8

As it is written: God hath given them the spirit of insensibility; eyes that they should not see; and ears that they should not hear,

Psalms 34:26[/b]

"Let them be clothed with confusion and shame, who speak great things against
me."

And shame it will be when the warning comes and there will be not a few Trads running to confession (including priests), when they find God's judgement of them is quite different to their own.

For the some of us who love our Popes, notwithstanding our desire of your salvation:

Psalms 58:10

"The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance."

"Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom... He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope." (St Catherine - Letter to Bernabo Visconti)

"Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil." (Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza).

"He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation, as I have already told you in another place." (God the Father - Dialogues; Treatise on Obedience)

BTNYC · « **Reply #21 on:** November 21, 2014, 10:00:08 AM »

Quote from: andysloan

BTNYC said:

"What do you propose we do with these peskily undeniable objective facts, Andy?"

Fr Amorth is, without sin, permitted to piously believe in Medjugorje, though the apparitions are apparently false. That does not remove the integrity of his office as an exorcist nor the veracity his testimony.

Whatever sins Fr Martin may have committed, the interview I posted was in 1994 and the book you refer to was written in 1964. Can we apply the same judgement on you, for the sins you may have committed in your youth? Have you heard Fr Martin's confessions through his life? Your judgement is only your opinion and not conclusive and you know not Fr Martins intentions. And whatever mistakes he may have made, that does not disallow a keen sagacity in his latter years especially.

As to the action of St Pope John Paul 2, you either have not listened to Fr Martin's reasoning, or you unreasonably don't accept it. Either way, you have been deprived of understanding from above.

This because of your pride and what the substance of your objection regarding St Pope John Paul 2, is that it is fearful and would be too much for your ego to have it threatened. That is why your efforts in discreditation, are so poor in balanced reasoning and objectivity.

However unfortunately for you, as things stand, when the great warning comes in the next years, you will be shown why God has given you to such severe blindness, namely for your pride, which is so common amongst contemporary Trads, who are Traditional in their mass attendance, but highly uncatholic in their behaviour:

Colossians 3:8

"But now put you also all away: anger, indignation, malice, blasphemy, filthy speech out of your mouth."

Ephesians 4:29

"Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good, to the edification of faith, that it may administer grace to the hearers."

Because of this, you have been blinded by God to the fullness of truth.

Romans 11:8

As it is written: God hath given them the spirit of insensibility; eyes that they should not see; and ears that they should not hear,

Psalms 34:26[/b]

"Let them be clothed with confusion and shame, who speak great things against
me."

And shame it will be when the warning comes and there will be not a few Trads running to confession (including priests), when they find God's judgement of them is quite different to their own.

For the some of us who love our Popes, notwithstanding our desire of your salvation:

Psalms 58:10

"The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance."

"Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom... He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope." (St Catherine - Letter to Bernabo Visconti)

"Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil." (Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza).

"He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation, as I have already told you in another place." (God the Father - Dialogues; Treatise on Obedience)

The sins of my youth were committed in my youth, by the stupid and selfish young man I was in my teens and twenties, the period of my life in which I dwelled outside the Faith in the bestial darkness of secularism. There is a world of difference between such genuinely youthful sins and acts of grave harm done against the Church in service of Her mortal enemies by a priest in his forties. I have confessed my youthful sins and have done my best to make reparation for them. I have no way of knowing whether Malachi Martin ever confessed his own acts of service to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, but I do know he never publicly renounced that service (which I would imagine would be an absolutely necessary act of reparation for so grave, so public and so damaging a sin as that). Indeed, the only public reference I can find to it from Malachi Martin in his later years was the above referenced boast made to Art Bell.

These facts make Malachi Martin an objectively suspicious source. If you can offer positive proof that my suspicions are unfounded, I will listen to you. But if you ask me to fideistically ignore those suspicions, you ask me to ignore my own rational faculties and conscience. I cannot and will not do that.

Fr. Amorth portrays himself as the world's foremost expert on demonic possession and satanic activity. Yet he praises an apparition which, by its promotion of religious indifferentism, shows itself to be of human and / or demonic origin with such manifest obviousness that even a reasonably well-catechized child could discern that. That objectively harms Fr. Amorth's credibility. I can no more ignore my rational faculties and conscience in this matter than I can in the case of Malachi Martin.

The Assisi Scandal of 1986 is arguably the gravest scandal comitted by any pope in Church history. It was - if not an act of formal apostasy - at the very least certainly an act that tended toward apostasy and was objectively blasphemous and sacrilegious. If it is argued that the pope was pressured by malign forces to convene that wicked event, then I will answer that no threat or compulsion justifies apostasy and sacriledge and blasphemy. I make no comment on the subjective guilt of the pontiff in this matter - I am as unable and incompetant to do so as any man - but I will nonetheless point out that even a Catholic layman is expected to lay down his life rather than apostatize or commit sacrilege, and in a cleric - let alone a bishop, let alone the Supreme Pontiff, the duty is that much more solemn. If you ask me to ignore the gravity of that scandal, Andy, then you are once again asking me to ignore my rational faculties and conscience. If you demand of me that I overlook the objectively outrageous and sacrilegious acts committed at Assisi in 1986 in order to protect the person of Karol Wojtyla / John Paul II, you are likewise asking me to ignore the formal condemnation of such inter-religious abominations pronounced by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos. I will not and cannot comply with that.

I make no judgments about about the intentions and interior dispositions of these men; I make no judgements on their formal guilt or innocence. I simply observe what is manifest and objectively certain and make my desicions regarding what I will give the assent of my will and intellect to accordingly. That is my duty as a Baptized and Confirmed Catholic. I deal here in objective facts, Andy - I leave the the subjective judgments about the "pride" and willful "blindness" of others to Almighty God, and it behooves you to do the same.

And I would remind you that Obedience, although a very high virtue, is an inferior virtue to Faith. Obedience is not owed when it poses a proximate danger to the Faith.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** November 21, 2014, 10:09:04 AM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Quote from: BTNYC
Quote from: LaramieHirsch
Quote from: Ladislaus
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.

Completely wrong

He himself was maddeningly vague on that point, referring to himself in public as "Doctor" Martin, rather than "Father" or "Reverend," while accepting all of these titles from others indifferently.

Once you are a priest, you are a priest forever. Even if you are laicized, you remain a priest. Whether you go to Heaven or Hell. Ordination is a sacrament that you cannot erase from the timeline.

Did you even READ what I posted?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained

once someone is laicized, he is to be treated for all intents and purposes as a LAYMAN, no titles, no "Father", etc.

It happened before V2 that priests were laicized and got married. They were not allowed to go around calling themselves "Father Bill" or whatever.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #23 on:** November 21, 2014, 01:13:08 PM »

Your facts regarding Malachi Martin's priesthood are mistaken, Lad. It's been gone over so many times, the proof of Paul VI's dispensation of MM from the Jesuits and his former Jesuit Superior's confession, etc. I'm too bored with it to dig it up anymore.

Also, too tired to dig up MM's intensely harsh condemnation of JP2 in an interview, in which he states that no more excuses can be made for him, and worse.

BTNYC · « **Reply #24 on:** November 21, 2014, 03:08:32 PM »

I forgot to treat of this in my previous post:

Quote from: andysloan

"Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom... He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope." (St Catherine - Letter to Bernabo Visconti)

You seem very fond of interminably quoting certain passaages from the writings of the saints and from private revelations and regarding them as if they enjoy some kind of infallible dogmatic character when in fact they do not.

St. Catherine is pretty obviously engaging in a hyperbole here, much like St. Ignatius Loyola did when he said "We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchic Church defines it thus." St. Ignatius was no anti-rational fideist and did not literally mean that the Church could ever pronounce something contrary to reason like white being black, 2+2 equaling 5, or the Blessed Trinity being four Persons rather than Three, nor did he literally mean that we should accept such a thing.

And it is also obvious that St. Catherine is referring to the hypothetical "devil" pope's personal peccability, not the very different possibility of his harming the Faith of his subjects. Obedience is an inferior virtue to Faith and one is not expected to practice any obeisance that would do damage to his Faith.

And I'll see your quotation of one great saint, and raise you one from an even greater one, which actually does posess the character of inerreancy, as it comes from Sacred Scripture:

I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians i:vi-x

andysloan · « **Reply #25 on:** November 21, 2014, 04:42:19 PM »

BTNYC said:

"I make no judgments about about the intentions and interior dispositions of these men; I make no judgements on their formal guilt or innocence."

Yes you do and unjustly so. Your reasoning is gibbersih and your "opinions" (and in the case of Fr Martin "his guilt") do not in anyway void the credibility of the testimonies of him or Fr Amorth. Rejecting the witness of Fr Amorth, because he may believe in Medjugoje, is saying because of this he must be a liar, which is absurd. And Fr Martin explains the reason for Assisi, which was a witness and seeding to the religious leaders of the world, ahead of Our Lady's coming" to which he bore witness in Fulda:

http://www.fatima.org/thirdsecret/fulda.asp

Your critique is totally vapid.

The reason for you lack of objectivity, is because you dishonestly skew your appraisals for fear that finding yourself wrong (which you are - and very!) and thus you will be indicted for all the hate and self-exaltation you have directed against the conciliar church under a mask of false piety and which you presently hide in your soul in false justification.

Luke 16:15

And he said to them: You are they who justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth your hearts;

You call yourself a Catholic, but reject the canonisation of Pope John Paul 2, yet as St Thomas rightly said:

"Divine providence preserves the Church lest in such matters it should err through the fallible testimony of men."

So is the sanction for your behavior

Psalms 39:16

Let them immediately bear their confusion, that say to me: Tis well, tis well.

snowball · « **Reply #26 on:** November 21, 2014, 04:44:25 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Martin's story changes depending on the audience.

absolutely, every word out of his mouth or written by his hand
should be immediately disregarded as a lie.

snowball · « **Reply #27 on:** November 21, 2014, 04:47:26 PM »

Quote from: snowball

Quote from: Ladislaus
Martin's story changes depending on the audience.

absolutely, MM is among the least trustworthy sources ever
become famous. I don't like to speak ill of the dead but I wouldn't
recommend taking anything he's ever sais seriously, because he
was a spy and counter-intelligence asset.

andysloan · « **Reply #28 on:** November 21, 2014, 04:59:25 PM »

BTNYC said:

"You seem very fond of interminably quoting certain passaages from the writings of the saints and from private revelations and regarding them as if they enjoy some kind of infallible dogmatic character when in fact they do not. "

I don't regard them as infallible, but:

1 Corinthians 14:6

"But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in doctrine?"

Ecclesiasticus 6:34-36

"If thou wilt incline thy ear, thou shalt receive instruction: and if thou love to hear, thou shalt be wise. Stand in the multitude of ancients that are wise, and join thyself from thy heart to their wisdom, that thou mayst hear every discourse of God, and the sayings of praise may not escape thee.
And if thou see a man of understanding, go to him early in the morning, and let thy foot wear the steps of his doors."

For the reason why you skew the meaning of what St Catherine says, see the previous post.

God preserves the Church from ex-cathedra error which we are boiund to believe for salvation and if Popes make private error, this can be ignored - Matt 23:1-3

But we are strictly bound to maintain submission:

"We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #29 on:** November 21, 2014, 09:33:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: LaramieHirsch
Quote from: BTNYC
Quote from: LaramieHirsch
Quote from: Ladislaus
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.

Completely wrong

He himself was maddeningly vague on that point, referring to himself in public as "Doctor" Martin, rather than "Father" or "Reverend," while accepting all of these titles from others indifferently.

Once you are a priest, you are a priest forever. Even if you are laicized, you remain a priest. Whether you go to Heaven or Hell. Ordination is a sacrament that you cannot erase from the timeline.

Did you even READ what I posted?

:read-paper: Huh?